safe swim question

[Proud Eagle]

Reading over the Guide to Safe Scouting I noticed something odd.

 

The first sentence under "Safe Swim Defense" is in normal, not bold type.

 

This seems rather strange that a sentence that says units MUST have a safe swimmed defense trained leader would be in normal type, meaning that it is a guideline rather than a mandatory policy. Now the 8 defenses are in bold, so they must be followed, but the statement that a leader must be trained is not.

 

I then went on to check to see what a tour permit says, and while it seems a bit clearer, it isn't completely clear either.

 

Then there are those situations that no tour permit is required.

 

My council for example says that no tour permit is required when camping at the council camps, or when conducting short in town activities of no more than a few hours, even if aquatics are involved. This information is included in the little known and little read unit Risk Management guide our council produced.

 

This would seem to indicate that having a safe swim defense trained leader is not actually required before conducting an aquatics activity, but that the 8 defences must be followed.

 

Now I am not trying to create a loop hole, but it appears one does exist.

 

It seems that first sentence should be in bold, yet it is not.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

[txscoutdad]

I would thind that the wording is exact and that no bold type is necessary in the first line.

The 8 items are bullet points and emphized for eaiser memorization.

[Bob White]

I'm speechless.

[mich632]

read defense #1 which is bold

 

"who is trained in and committed to compliance with the eight points of BSA Safe Swim Defense."

 

You must have someone trained in safe swim defense to go swimming.

[Proud Eagle]

You are quite right.

 

I some how missed the "is trained in" part of defense # 1.

 

Must have been getting late or something. I noticed it said the person had to be know the defenses and follow them, yet I somehow missed the key part.

 

I would say, that it wouldn't be a bad idea to put the first sentence in bold just to make extra certain people get the point. After all, they put the sentence that serves the same purpose under Safety Afloat in bold.

 

Any how, it would seem there is most certainly not a loop hole, instead there was just a minor oversight in my reading.

[NJCubScouter]

I'm speechless.

 

Gee, that was certainly helpful advice, Bob.

 

Fortunately for Proud Eagle, someone else wasn't speechless, knew the answer (or found it), and pointed out to Proud Eagle what he had missed when reading it the first time.

 

[Bob White]

Still having trouble with 'discuss the post and not the poster' NJ?